Is 98ron fuel really that much better 95ron

[JohnnyMo]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Why not make 96-98 a mid level rating and release a 102 "ultimate" octane fuel that actually works with boosted cars, not against them. The number of turbo and blown cars that are on the market thesedays is likely 10 times that of 20 years ago, yet our octane rating is down almost 10 numbers because of the loss of TEL.

Yes we may pay for it, but there are a lot of people that buy performance cars to perform.

Daniel

^^^ i agree...they should give us what we want & what we pay for full stop!
No rust or dirt just better performing & cleaner fuels for our Cars.

[MITCHAY]

Plug in an OBDII port reader capable of displaying knock correction and see the difference between 95 and 98.

[mrbaxr6t]

just for s&g I put in a fulltank of 98 octane then put in nulon octane booster - which in theory should ave pushed the fuel to 100 octane - didn't do jack squat I assumed I would see better economy - didn't see any difference either 98 octane is bs or octane booster is bs.

[TUF_302]

My XR8 runs alot better on 98 i think, probably casue its got a few mods but none the less it loves 98 octane!

[Whitey-AMG]

I've also used both Shell 98 and 95 and like many on here.......its difficult to sense any discernible difference between the 2.

The minimum requirement for my BFGT 290 as outlined by FPV is 95. They recommend BP Ultimate 98 for best performance.......whatever that means.

You then get the BOSS 302 and 315 engines which are actually tuned to run on 98 but will "get by" on 95. In fact the outputs are measured using 98 RON for these 2.

I think any fuel will vary from servo to servo, batch to batch and even weather conditions may affect fuel quality as well as how long the fuel has been in the tank in the servo and the tank in your car.

95 at a good clean servo with a fresh batch may very well be much better than 98 at a decrepid servo which has had it stored for 3-4 months etc ????
Also depends on whether the left over in your car is any good when you fill up with new fuel.........what happens to the mix may degrade the new fuel etc etc..........

It really is a Pandoras box with no credible single repeatable situation for everyone. We're all prisoners to our own paranoia about buying the best for our performance cars. The fuel companies know this and will continue to prey on our uncertainty and our willingness to fork out the extra coin for possibly a similar fuel.............because in the back of our minds we all think the same "just in case" thought...........I better fill up with 98.........just in case.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by blackers10

at the V8 supercar fan day thing at the RNA they had 2 BA/BF GTs on dynos ..(was A BP thing) 1 on regular 1 on premium ..we asked the guy there and he said the regular 1 would eventually die. and they showed different power figures on each

Personally I hate hearing about this "test", it is so damn close to false advertising it is obscene.

Both cars are the same model GT-P, both are claimed to be standard. Now both these cars are BF model which means they have knock sensors. The FPV owners manual states the minimum standard for fuel is 95 octane. This is due to the higher compression ratio of the FPV Boss motors, it has been this way since the BAI. Both our GT (BAII) and our Super Pursuit (BFI) list minimum fuel as 95.

This means that they are running one car on 91, a fuel it is not designed for due to the fact that it has a high compression ratio. This will cause the engine to knock, causing the ECU to change AFR and pull ignition timing out, reducing power (no kidding). Meanwhile the other car is run on 98, better than standard, the ECU is not fighting detonation and therefore running better AFR and timing (genius).

Therefore it is a rigged test, of course the car run on a fuel that is better than the manufacturers recommendation is going to outperform the one that is run on fuel that is below the recommended fuel (to the point that if FPV tested it and could prove this, no warranty). A more accurate test would be to have two XT's (can run on 91) and compare, I am sure the result will be different.

Just another rigged demonstration to sucker punch all the victims of advertising out there. Its on a dyno and it is in colour so it must be true :

[mrbaxr6t]

firstly sorry I just cant seem to leave this thread alone - geckogt that is a very astute observation, I was not aware that it was a rigged test and on the subject of detonation wrong spark plug choice can have the same effect supercondense a story - I had a modded EF futura with many mods, headwork and all kinds of off the wall stuff, intakes, exhausts and it just wouldn't develop the power the sum of its parts should have made. In desperation I replaced the spark plug leads and recorded a dyno jump of 20rwkw! with leads! so I swapped the plugs and it was a different car. Its like it was capable of the horsepower but couldn't get there as it was fighting against poor spark/detonation and hence retarding its timing something chronic.

The point is spark plugs can dictate how fuel burns regardless of what fuel you are using if the spark sucks you will get detonation and your computer will correct this. Also I am quite astonished that BAxr6t don't have knock sensor I don't get this at all?

[geckoGT]

Also I am quite astonished that BAxr6t don't have knock sensor I don't get this at all?

I am pretty sure they do, all I6 in the BA range did. As far as I know it was just the 260/290 in BA that did not. In BF the 260/290 got a knock sensor and the I6's got a second knock sensor as part of the change to the new ECU.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[mrbaxr6t]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I am pretty sure they do, all I6 in the BA range did. As far as I know it was just the 260/290 in BA that did not. In BF the 260/290 got a knock sensor and the I6's got a second knock sensor as part of the change to the new ECU.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

ugh not saying you are wrong but this conflicting info I keep getting is beginning to make me look like a tool. Need some new sources of inpho.......

[flappist]

I wonder why Holden advertise that their Commodore SS model demonstrates a maximum power of 270Kw on 98 and they print a disclaimer that it does not demonstrate that much on 95?

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by tweeked

It will only run better on 98 if it is tuned to.

....
Cars with no knock sensor, if they dont ping on 95, will make little or no more power on 98 if they are tuned for 95.

This was not really my experience in my EFII I6 Futura.

98 gave me over 50km per tank over 91, and the car was bog stock standard, I did extensive testing (I had the car for 11 years). 98 was noticable better than 95 as well

(excluding Shell - for some reason I could never get good numbers from shell)

[Jondalar]

On any decent car with a knock sensor the timing should advance if it detects no knocking and retard if there is knocking (or the other way around, brain isn't working). Either way the car wouldn't need to be tuned for the fuel, the car tunes itself up to a point.

I've noticed definitely better fuel consumption using 98 over regular unleaded and also 95 over regular. There's somewhat better consumption on 98 over 95, but it's not so pronounced.

Where are you guys paying >10c extra for 98 over 95? Here it's only 3-4c extra.

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by danets

maybe you should buy a commo and take a hike.

Poor baby, there there, let it all out..

[geckoGT]

Ok, I too should keep out of this topic because I hate the BS involved with it. The problem is I have a helpful nature and hate seeing people get ripped off for no reason.

I have just been to our local BP and picked up all the leaflets regarding BP Ultimate. I might add that the price for ultimate is $1.31.9, premium is $1.18.9 right now (don't believe me? BP Mt Cotton Rd, Mt Cotton QLD, go have a look).

For the sake of argument I am only going to refer to standard cars, I concede modified vehicles do change the game, especially ECU modifications. I am also going to remind everyone that for a car to gain any benefit from higher octane fuels, it has to be able to detect it. If the car does not have knock sensors, it can not as it can not advance timing to the threshold of detonation (because it does not know). So therefore any car without this technology is most likely to see the absolute bottom range of any improvement, if any at all.

So here goes!

Lets look at the claims first.

Up to 14.7% more power (average of 7.7%) over ordinary fuel (ordinary unleaded is 91, industry standard). The key here is "up to" and the average. If they have one car out of 1.5 milllion that achieved 14.7% improvement (obvious exageration for illustrative purposes), they can make that claim. It is more likely that the modern car with advanced ECU's, knock sensors etc will see results somewhere between the average and upper results. So lets be fair and average those two and see what it means (11.2%).

I own a FPV, 290 kw DIN is the manufacturer claims for that engine, so lets assume they are telling the truth. I would bet my right arm that when they measured the output in order to make that claim, they did not use fuel that was sitting in a can in the corner of the workshop for the last 6 mths and was 95 octane. No they would have used BP ULtimate ("Ford Performance Vehicles recommends BP Ultimate Unleaded", as stated in the leaflet) in order to achieve this figure. So if we were to reduce this figure by 11.2%, we lose 32.48kw. But we now compare the topic fuels of this thread and we are not talking 98 ron compared to 91 ron fuels, we are comparing 98 ron and 95 ron which is still a premium and has a ron reduction of three points compared to 7 for the 91ron. Being generous I would be prepared to concede that I may lose 10kw-15kw, on an engine that I do not use its maximum potential on the street anyway, big deal.

Do you really believe it is going to make that much difference on an FPV, I do not and this why.

An independent testing facility in the UK was asked to test BP Ultimate Unleaded against ordinary fuel to see if there really is a difference. A Mitsubishi Evolution high performance car repeated several power tests on a dynamometer - rolling road - which allowed the power output of the car to be graphically and accurately measured.

The same vehicle produced 6% more power at 7000rpm when running on BP Ultimate Unleaded versus ordinary fuel …

This is a quote direct from www.bp.com.au. It does not state what ordinary fuel is, according to our standards it would be 91ron. The Lancer evolution being a high tech turbo is going to be more sensitive to fuel qualities than our home grown NA V8, does anyone disagree? It only produced 6% more power! Not much difference really is it? Lets say, just for fun, that 95ron produces a power figure half way between those 2, so 3%. In my 290 kw motor, using the scenario given earlier, we have lost 8.7% at max revs (most likely less at real world street rpm).

My personal observation, over months of trying it out for myself (on my BAI XR8, BAII GT, BFI Super Pursuit and R56 Mini Cooper S JCW) is, power wise my butt is not sensitive enough to feel any difference. Therefore in my experience, power increases for daily driving is not worth the extra money.

Next victim!

The chart shows the average (3.9%) and maximum (6.9%) reduction in fuel consumption achieved through continuous use of new improved BP Ultimate Unleaded compared with ordinary fuel, as measured in independent tests in a range of vehicles.

New improved BP Ultimate Unleaded is designed to burn better than ordinary fuels and clean your engine as you drive. And because our advanced fuel formulation also includes friction reducing components, this can help your engine to release energy more efficiently, which in turn can lead to better fuel economy. Although the benefits may be evident almost straightaway, for best results use new improved BP Ultimate continuously.

* Based on 70 litre fuel tank and 11l/100km fuel economy; average benefit of 25 km extra per tank in vehicles tested. Kilometres benefits can increase or decrease depending on driving style and distance travelled.

Direct quote from website.

So lets have a look at this claim because at face value it seems that although I am paying more for the fuel, I save money because I use less.

If I get the full benefit of 6.9% reduction in fuel consumption excellent, but 95ron only costs 90% of the price of 98ron. So in reality I am paying more anyway. Now remember this claim again refers to ordinary fuel (91ron) and not our topic of 95ron. So the reduction in fuel consumption will be less than that, if any at all if we compare 98 with 95 ron. But lets be generous and say it gets half way @ 3.5%. So now you are going to pay 10% more for 3.5% better economy, end result is worse economy in 98 ron over 95 ron.

Look at their note at the bottom of the quote. You pay less than $83.23 for a tank of ördinary fuel (I say less than as they are referring to 91 ron, the price I used was for 95 ron) and you pay $92.33 for a tank of 98 ron. On the 98 ron you get 25km more range, which at the quoted consumption rate of 11L/100km (70L divided by 11L/100km = 636km range), add the 25km and you get a range of 661km. For the two tanks you are paying $9.10 more for the fuel with 98 ron, but using their figures you are getting 3.2% better economy but paying 10% more for it, false economy. Average car - 20,000km/year divided by 636km per tank = 31.44 tanks x $83.23 per tank = $2616 per year, 661km per tank = 30.25 tanks x $92.33 per tank = $2793 per year.

Now lets look at the cleaner engine claim.

New improved BP Ultimate Unleaded is designed to clean your engine as you drive, allowing it to run more smoothly and efficiently, and perform better than with ordinary fuels.

The use of ordinary fuels can result in the formation of deposits on critical engine components which can reduce the performance of your engine. New improved BP Ultimate Unleaded is formulated with advanced cleaning properties; not only can it help keep an engine in a new condition and as designed by the manufacturer, it also has the ability to remove most existing engine deposits that ordinary fuels can leave behind. And now with even better engine cleaning properties, new improved BP Ultimate Unleaded can deliver 33% faster cleaning than before.

With ongoing use independent tests in a range of vehicles show that new improved BP Ultimate Unleaded can remove an average 75% of existing intake valve deposits. This means that dirty engines can become significantly cleaner with continuous use of new improved BP Ultimate Unleaded.

That is a direct quote from their website regarding 98 ron.

Many imported cars, and particularly those with turbochargers, respond well to unleaded 95 petrol. These high performance cars are often designed for high octane fuel and use sensors to retard ignition when using regular petrol. This enables satisfactory operation, but at a penalty in power or economy. Unleaded 95 enables operation at maximum efficiency. It also contains a detergent additive, which keeps fuel injectors, carburetors, inlet valves and ports clean to help maintain optimum performance of your engine.

This is a direct quote from their website regarding 95 ron.

Look at that, although they spend more effort telling you how clean 98 ron is (of course thay do, they want you to buy it so they can make more), they state that both clean your engine (their words, not mine).

Need I say more on that, they have proved it for me. I could discuss this more but in the absence of an expensive testing lab, it would be assumption. I will however assume that the difference in cleaning properties between the two fuels is minimal.

Ok, wake up everyone I know it was a long one! It is time to summarise.

1. 98 octane offers such a negligable increase in power it would not be appreciated in normal driving.
2. 98 offers negative economy as the cost of the fuel vastly outweighs and decrease in fuel consumption.
3. Both fuels offer cleaner combustion and reduced accumulation of deposits within the engine.
4. Older cars will see less improvement than newer cars, if any. Similarly, turbo cars will see better improvements as they can use more boost than what NA cars will.
5. 98 ron will allow tuners to wring more power out of the cars as they are using parameters that factory standard cars do not, giving more room for adjustments. I do challenge that 98 is so much better than 95 though?
6. If you are trying to extract the best out of your car on pump fuel and money does not matter, go for 98 ron. If not, stay with 95 ron as the money saving is a better option.

[EgoFG]

I get lost in the details and dont understand the theories, that is why I recommend back to back tests - I then get some facts.

Remember when fact and theory differ - it is the theory that is wrong.

[mrbaxr6t]

geckogt : you have just made my argument that 95 is every bit as good as 98 with cold hard facts - I knew I was right using 95 octane. I for one appreciate the effort you have gone to to bust ultimate. thankyou

[geckoGT]

This was not really my experience in my EFII I6 Futura.

98 gave me over 50km per tank over 91, and the car was bog stock standard, I did extensive testing (I had the car for 11 years). 98 was noticable better than 95 as well

(excluding Shell - for some reason I could never get good numbers from shell)

This may be so, everyones experience is different and that is what you should base your own decision on. However, your comparison although interesting does not contribute to the debate raised by the OP as he was asking about 98 ron compared to 95 ron, not 98 ron compared to 91 ron.

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

geckogt : you have just made my argument that 95 is every bit as good as 98 with cold hard facts - I knew I was right using 95 octane. I for one appreciate the effort you have gone to to bust ultimate. thankyou

No problems. Obviously it is not something that is clear cut, it does take some time to look at the claims, weed out the crap and look at the cost compared to the benefit.

It does come down to what you want, if you want the best performance available regardless of cost then 98 ron is for you. If you want very good performance but cost is a factor, 95 ron is your weapon. If you don't give a crap, stick with 91. To me, that is it in a nutshell.

If you believe that 98 ron is going to give remarkable performance, positive economy @ 10c/L more cost and a cleaner engine over 95 ron, you are a victim of advertising, please prove me wrong. Having said that, @4c/L price difference there may be a cost neutral effect of 98 ron over 95 ron. This is something I can not look at as BP do not give figures for increased fuel economy of 95 ron over 91 ron (probably because they do not want the public working out for themselves that ultimate is not worth the price hike over 95 ron). I very much doubt that 98 ron will be more economical in the long run over 95 though. In fact my figures that I have maintained on our vehicles show no difference in the fuel economy between 95 ron and 98 ron.

[Jondalar]

Interesting write up GeckoGT, I can't use BP only Caltex or Shell. Shell have no 95 fuel, only 98. Caltex is usually 10c more a liter for 95 than regular, and 4c more a liter for 95 over 98. I usually buy Shell where I pay 14c a liter more for 98 over regular. So the sums work differently. I definitely do not pay 23c a liter more than regular.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Jondalar

Interesting write up GeckoGT, I can't use BP only Caltex or Shell. Shell have no 95 fuel, only 98. Caltex is usually 10c more a liter for 95 than regular, and 4c more a liter for 95 over 98. I usually buy Shell where I pay 14c a liter more for 98 over regular. So the sums work differently. I definitely do not pay 23c a liter more than regular.

Nor do we, this morning 95 was about 4c/L more than 91, so about 17c/L between 91 and 98.

[FPV8U]

In my Area my choices are V Power or Ultimate or Homebrand premium at ''Lucky motors'' service stations :P

On a side note my car does notice large drop in economy between 95 and 98 asmuch a 2L per 100Km in my standard mixed driving and no it hasn't been tuned.

[Nikked]

Im sure you yould only noyice a difference in a car that is of high tune, running a high copression or boost, and tuned on the fuel. On a standard car i doubt there would be a real noticable differnce...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

In my Area my choices are V Power or Ultimate or Homebrand premium at ''Lucky motors'' service stations :P

On a side note my car does notice large drop in economy between 95 and 98 asmuch a 2L per 100Km in my standard mixed driving and no it hasn't been tuned.

That is huge, what were the conditions that you experienced that? Was it a one off tank or was it over a period of time, what period of time?

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

That is huge, what were the conditions that you experienced that? Was it a one off tank or was it over a period of time, what period of time?

To be honest i can hardly remember, was over a year ago and i only got fuel there because there was meant to be Vortex 98 and wasn't but i had no fuel so i tried 95.

From memory it performed aswell as Ultimate on the HWY, but around town was a shocker.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

To be honest i can hardly remember, was over a year ago and i only got fuel there because there was meant to be Vortex 98 and wasn't but i had no fuel so i tried 95.

From memory it performed aswell as Ultimate on the HWY, but around town was a shocker.

So it was a one off tank.

Not an indicator of economy as there can be that sort of variation between any two tanks. Too many factors including the following.

1 Car left idling for long periods
2 Your foot was a bit heavier than normal (though not intentional)
3 Traffic was a bit heavier
4 Tyres at a lower pressure than normal
5 Carried more weight than normal during that time period

The list goes on and on!

On my figures I have seen variations by more than that in weeks that I would consider "normal driving" without a change in fuel.

My point, you can not consider one tank indicative of the fuel economy provided by a fuel at all when there are the number of variables provided by "normal driving". You need to look at a period of time, probably not less than 3 months to provide any worthwhile indication.

Example, I could take a car that has been run on 95 for ages, put one tank of 98 in and see worse economy because of factors that are nothing to do with the fuel, agree?

There can also be bad batches of fuel, example is our old GT. It was tuned and therefore sensitive to bad fuel. I had a number of occasions after long periods of running well on ultimate, it would ping on a tank of ultimate, yet it was fine the next tank. It was actually that reason that I switched to Caltex as I find their fuel quality is a bit more stable. It could have been one bad batch of 95.

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

So it was a one off tank.

Not an indicator of economy as there can be that sort of variation between any two tanks. Too many factors including the following.

1 Car left idling for long periods
2 Your foot was a bit heavier than normal (though not intentional)
3 Traffic was a bit heavier
4 Tyres at a lower pressure than normal
5 Carried more weight than normal during that time period

The list goes on and on!

On my figures I have seen variations by more than that in weeks that I would consider "normal driving" without a change in fuel.

My point, you can not consider one tank indicative of the fuel economy provided by a fuel at all when there are the number of variables provided by "normal driving". You need to look at a period of time, probably not less than 3 months to provide any worthwhile indication.

Example, I could take a car that has been run on 95 for ages, put one tank of 98 in and see worse economy because of factors that are nothing to do with the fuel, agree?

There can also be bad batches of fuel, example is our old GT. It was tuned and therefore sensitive to bad fuel. I had a number of occasions after long periods of running well on ultimate, it would ping on a tank of ultimate, yet it was fine the next tank. It was actually that reason that I switched to Caltex as I find their fuel quality is a bit more stable. It could have been one bad batch of 95.

While a few of the factors where i live are not applicable in my view, i agree that one Tank isn't a fair comparison.

But as said the only fuel i trust around here is Ultimate or V power so i'll never be able to give you more than a comparison between them :P

[flappist]

BP Scarness today Ultimate $1.20.9

[brenx]

In my 02 Mazda 98/95 and 91ron all get 620k's per tank. It's going to vary from engine to engine. I get that 620k's per tank around town with the aircon on or off. In this car no, 98 or 95 ain't any better than 91ron.

Then if I compare the detonation characteristics of 91/95/98 in my XB's 393 I don't bother with consumption. 91 detonates, 95 detonates and 98 don't. So, yes 98 is better than 91 and 95ron. The XB's engine won't produce it's full potential power with any fuel under 98ron.

The fuel you use will vary dependant on engine demands. It'll only be beneficial IF the engine can make use of it. Everyone would need to test in their own vehicle.

[Late braker]

According to the fuel range predictor in my '08 BF MkII XR6 N/A, I should expect 565 km on Shell Unleaded 91 and 506 km on Shell V-Power 98. I have run a few tanks of 91 then quite a few tanks of V-Power without changing back again to let the engine management "learn" the difference. The difference in the mid-range to me is noticeably better and the engine does seem smoother and with better response- more "willing". Completely stock, untouched car with 5000 km on it. I have not tried 95 yet. The fuel economy is not as good as on 91 but then the performance of the car is better.

I support DJR so almost always use Shell fuel and have not tried any other brands so far.